LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.* 

Chap Copyright No 

ShelBIkA I (q 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/hypothesisforcepOOtaft 



HYPOTHESIS FOR A 
CEPTACLE THEORY 



HYPOTHESIS FOR A 
CEPTACLE THEORY 



BY 

OREN B. TAFT 



CHICAGO 

PRINTED AT THE LAKESIDE PRESS 

1900 



TWO COPIES RECEIVED, 
Library of Cengraf^ 
Office o f t||| 

APR 1 81900 

Keglsttr of Copyrlgfcffc 






61184 

Copyrighted, iqoo 

BY 

OREN B. TAFT 



6EG0N0 COPY, 



If the hypothesis here advanced is sustained, 
and a ceptacle, so named, be a nature-fact, then 
it must follow that no more of this hypothesis, 
or theory, as human knowledge, can be new 
than is the measure of the latest development of 
such ceptacle. For if Antecedent is having its 
Being in its own expression, where atom, proto- 
plasm and ceptacle follow each other, in one 
evolution, in, what may be, one scientific-philo- 
sophical classification, then knowledge itself, 
which appears with human life in that evolu- 
tion, is correlative of this ceptacle development, 
and any individual person has little relative 
importance in so large a movement. 

It is believed the propositions, together with 
the definitions, are stated with sufficient clear- 
ness to indicate the principle involved. There- 
fore, the brief argument added must be taken 
only as the method of their application in the 
thoughts of the writer, and not as supposedly 
conclusive evidence either for or against their 
validity. O. B. T. 

Chicago, February, /goo. 



DEFINITIONS. 



CEPTACLE. 



Ceptacle — differs from either con- 
ceptacle, re-ceptacle or concept in that it 
has no relative, or relatives, or conceivable 
relation outside of itself. The Infinite 
and Absolute inhere in its Nature. Its 
essence is a state of ceaseless change. 
Its phenomenon is a realization of itself 
as motion. Its parts are a sequence of 
this realization as a movement of its 
related self within itself. Its substance 
is a coherence measurable by time and 
space. 

BEING. 

Being — is the immediacy of ceaseless 
change, which objectifies itself in a con- 
scious phenomenon, whereby it reveals 
itself to itself as the relationing subject 
and object accounting for its own activity. 
9 



Definitions. 



RELATIONING. 

Relationing — implies activity in a plu- 
rality, where the ratio of relatives being 
greater or less than any assignable differ- 
ence makes it an activity occurring 
within a separate or separable thing, 

I NTELLIGENCE-MATTER. 

Intelligence-Matter — is substance hav- 
ing coherence, measurable by terms of 
dimension in Space, possessing motion 
occurring in an order which, describable in 
terms of Time, will account for the coher- 
ence. 

NATURE. 

"Nature — means the sum of all phe- 
nomena, together with the causes which 
produce them, including not only all that 
happens, but all that is capable of hap- 
pening; the unused capabilities of causes 
being as much a part of this idea of 
nature as those which take effect." — J. S. 
Mill. 

10 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 



PRINCIPLE. 

Any separate or separable thing, when 
a Ceptacle, is being the consciously insep- 
arable likeness and difference of itself to 
itself within itself. 



PROPOSITIONS. 
I. 
Whatever exists, whether of intension 
or extension, animate or inanimate, as a 
separate being or thing, or any separable 
or distinguishable object or subject that 
is conceived to exist, is a Relationing of 
itself to itself within itself. 

II. 

This Relationing at a given point is a 
cohesive, individual, recognizable, de- 
scribable, conscious Ceptacle, in being its 
own Identity of itself within itself. 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

III. 

In any separate or separable thought, 
conception or perception, the subject and 
object thought are in the same Ceptacle, 
and the Relationing therein is a realiza- 
tion of their one identity as itself to itself 
within itself. In any Ceptacle the ratio 
of the relatives to each other is greater or 
less than any assignable difference. 

IV. 
When in any Ceptacle the nature of the 
ratio of its relatives in its unassignable 
difference becomes Conscious Identity, 
then its Antecedent Unused Capabilities 
are an inseparable present in such Cep- 
tacle, thereby furnishing to Identity the 
proof that the Infinite and Absolute is 
Itself. 



12 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 



ARGUMENT. 

Proposition I. is based upon the assump- 
tion that in all effort, without exception, 
both philosophy and science have failed 
to abstract or eliminate from any ultimate 
or unit, whether an idea, a thing or an 
ideal-thing, so much that the remainder 
does not contain or cannot be conceived 
to contain, does not consist of or cannot 
be conceived to consist of, is not of the 
nature of or cannot be conceived to be of 
the nature of a plurality. 

Mathematics, resorted to for the 
demonstration of truths, fortifies this 
proposition of the Universality of the 
Law of Relativity, when its Ultimate in 
geometrical symbolism — a point, though 
defined as without length, breadth, or 
thickness by a limping terminology, 
proves itself a plurality in its failure to 
square a circle. The mathematical unit, 
also, like the geometrical point, proved 
an inexhaustible plurality, in which Kep- 
T 3 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory, 

ler found it necessary to indicate any 
ultimate unknown, not by the X sign 
alone, but by X +. 

In describing il whatever exists as a 
separate being or thing," in Proposition L, 
it is intended to be all comprehensive in 
its application, whether the " being or 
thing" is ideal, real or an ideal-realism, 
as these actually are or are defined to 
be, in the usage of words. If mind and 
matter can be differentiated in creative 
expression, neither precedes the other in 
that expression, but is co-existent in the 
same being or thing. If the difference 
of their ratio in such expression is such 
that either would fail to appear, the ex- 
pression itself disappears. 

In its essence, "whatever exists" is a 
plurality from which science and philos- 
ophy do and must utterly fail to abstract 
or eliminate its relatives, so that at least 
two do not always remain as the content 
of such being or thing. With these, a 
Relationing (Def.) of themselves to them- 
i 4 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

selves within itself evidences the fact that 
the fundamental principle in any human 
consideration of it is that of a plurality. 
This "Universal flux," found to be the 
essence of whatever exists in the lower 
order of creative expression, is likewise the 
essence of its Being (Def.) when the human 
appears. From this conclusion there can 
be no escape if Proposition I. is to hold 
true. It is the law, not only of any sep- 
arate or separable inanimate atom, or 
animate cell, but also of any separate or 
separable idea. If atom is at the bottom, 
Ego is only further along in a movement 
of one evolution, in which Soul is the 
Identity at the top of that which has 
preceded. This may be but a re-state- 
ment of the known Law of Relativity, but 
it must be with the difference of this inex- 
orable insistence; that if this Law is found 
sufficient to hold together the inseparable 
relatives Intelligence and Matter, as atom 
or protoplasm, and out of these to build 
a Universe, this same Law is sufficient to 
15 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory, 

compel human Identity in its Ego to asso- 
ciate itself with its objective in an insep- 
arable Oneness which forbids the possibil- 
ity of subject and object ever being other 
than inseparable relatives. So long as 
the opinion was held that the earth was 
exempt from the law of the universal 
movement of the planets, chiefly for the 
reason that it was necessary for it to be 
so in order that the solar system might 
revolve about it, astronomy was an inex- 
tricable tangle. So the "point of view" 
taken by Ego in all its considerations of 
objectivity, whether of the Antecedent of 
its being or of the least of things, has 
placed that objectivity always in the sec- 
ond or third person. This is not a mere 
incident in the immature growth of lan- 
guage; it is the immature expression of a 
Principle, which has as yet evolved from 
itself, from out its own domain, an Ego 
that is a realization of a small portion 
only of itself. When Ego shall under all 
circumstances conceive the law of its 
16 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

Being (Def.) to include it also within, and 
to be a part of, Universal creative expres- 
sion, so that ?w point of view can remove 
this Ego outside the pale of such creative 
expression, much of the tangle in our 
lives will disappear, as did the tangle in 
astronomy. To do this, Ego cannot 
ignore a Oneness with the least of things 
in an inseparable relationing, if it would 
find a Oneness with the Infinite and Abso- 
lute in what it conceives a sublime 
relation. 

Relationing (Def.) in the order of its 
Being (Def.) in its unfolding must be true 
with unrelenting persistence throughout 
the evolution of that Being, from its low- 
est to its highest. This law of relativity 
must be followed through Propositions II., 
III. and IV., with a courage which, if ad- 
hered to, will in the minds of many rank 
the statement as born of presumptuous 
foolishness. Thus, in Proposition I., it is 
said that "whatever exists is a Relation- 
17 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

ing of itself to itself within itself." 
Proposition II. adds that this Relationing 
is its own Being as this "whatever exists"; 
and further, that at a given point in cre- 
ative expression, Relationing, as its own 
Being, is a "cohesive, individual, recogniz- 
able, describable, and conscious Ceptacle 
(Def.), the content of which is its own 
Identity of itself within itself." At this 
point, the purpose must be to define this 
Ceptacle and make it stand out for dis- 
cernment as atom or protoplasm may 
supposably be discerned and defined. 
Ceptacle, in a classification with atom and 
protoplasm, is but a creative expression, 
and must be prepared for like treatment. 
It is not necessary for this purpose that 
we should give to the definition of Intel- 
ligence and Matter more or less than is 
granted by common acceptation. What- 
ever definition will describe such Intelli- 
gence-Matter (Def.) will, when applied to 
atom or protoplasm, describe that atom 
or protoplasm itself; for without a descrip- 
18 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

tion of such Intelligence-Matter, such 
atom or protoplasm cannot be known. 
This is their substance as each exists or 
is conceived to exist. Now a description 
of this Activity, as the Relationing of 
this Intelligence-Matter with itself within 
itself, will describe its Ceptacle; for Cep- 
tacle is the Self-Realized Identity of that 
Intelligence-Matter (Def.) as its definite, 
coherent, and creative expression, the 
product of Evolution. Therefore, to de- 
scribe the Being of this Intelligence-Mat- 
ter as Itself conscious of itself, will be to 
describe its Ceptacle. 

A drop of water, its expansion by heat, 
its energy as steam, in a world which has 
not yet evolved humanity, is an atom-fact, 
but a conscious one unevolved. This 
same drop of water, its expansion and 
energy when the human does come, has 
not changed one iota; the human fact 
has not added or taken from that inani- 
mate its slightest particle, or changed its 
character. But what has been and is 
19 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

now, through and with this human, con- 
sciously knows that it has been and is. 
Any description of this human phenome- 
non in its knowing, at the given point of 
knowing this particular drop of expand- 
ing water, will be a description of the 
substance of that drop as Intelligence- 
Matter, in a relationing activity of these 
as its relatives; and, also, a description 
of the contents of a Ceptacle, which is 
their evolution in a higher phenomenon. 
At all times and in all places the Law of 
the Being of this drop of water has not 
been changed. For as out of the inani- 
mate evolves the animate, so that that 
which before has expressed no life be- 
comes alive, in or through this human, 
this drop of water, in the order of its 
Being, has become conscious Intelligence- 
Matter itself, whose humanity appears in 
a Ceptacle of conscious existence. A 
description of this is made possible, in 
consciousness, by the fact that its con- 
tents will be a description of that cohe- 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

sive, individual, recognizable and describ- 
able Intelligence-Matter, as its own 
activity, in a relationing of itself, when it 
evolves this Ceptacle. 

Professor Huxley, in his essay on 
"Sensations and the Sensiferous Organs," 
says: "In ultimate analysis, then, it ap- 
pears that the sensation is the equivalent 
in terms of consciousness for a mode of 
motion of the matter of the sensorium. 
But if inquiry is pushed a stage further, 
and the question is asked, What do we 
know about matter and motion? there is 
but one reply possible. All we know 
about motion is that it is a name for cer- 
tain changes in the relations of our visual, 
tactile, and muscular sensations; and all 
that we know about matter is that it is 
the hypothetical substance of physical 
phenomena — the assumption of the exist- 
ence of which is as pure a piece of meta- 
physical speculation as is that of the 
existence of the substance of mind." 

All of which is an inevitable conclusion 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

from these assumed premises. Are we 
sure, however, that "in the ultimate 
analysis a sensation is the equivalent in 
terms of consciousness for a mode of mo- 
tion of the matter of the sensorium" 
only, as limited by Mr. Huxley? Change 
the premise; assume this Hypothetical 
Ceptacle in the ultimate analysis. Then 
it will appear that a sensation is the 
equivalent, in terms of consciousness, of 
whatever is the mode of motion of the 
substance, as physical phenomenon, that 
pervades the entire Ceptacle, including 
not only this subjective sensorium of Mr. 
Huxley's, but that exterior substance. Is 
there any fundamental reason in science 
that shall make it less possible for that 
objective substance in this relation to 
evolve a sensorium than for the physical 
subjective? If not, will it not, then, 
be a proper field for science at least to 
inquire into the possibility that that which 
occurs in mind, conventionally so called 
in this instance, occurs also in a sen- 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory, 

sorium in its relative objective matter as 
well, and pervades the entire Ceptacle? 
That if sensation, feeling, perception, 
knowledge, understanding, consciousness 
are of the mind, they are not segregated 
as abstractions by the mind from either 
the subject or object matter in that Cep- 
tacle, though in the evolution of Ceptacle 
this may appear to be the case, because 
the proportions vary in greater or less 
degree, as acute faculties, at which these 
several phases of sensate phenomena of 
Intelligence-Matter have arrived. It is 
possible, therefore, that after all, these phe- 
nomena may not have their limitations to 
what "we know about motion, as a name 
for certain changes in the relation of our 
visual, tactile, and muscular sensations" 
alone. But rather, they are what Intel- 
ligence-Matter, as both subject and 
object, realizes as certain Changes in rela- 
tives, which are itself, that pervade the 
entire domain to which such knowledge 
may reach. That the phenomena appear 
2 3 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

by virtue of substance, sufficient at every 
part for the development of a sensorium 
that shall account for sensation, feeling, 
perception, understanding or conscious- 
ness, throughout the whole, as they shall 
unfold themselves through evolution. 

It is no longer difficult for the under- 
standing to comprehend the existence of 
inorganic matter, or to follow it as molec- 
ular activity even to the limits of the 
Solar system, though vast changes have 
come to this understanding since Grecian 
philosophy held in its mind a proper 
cognition of such elementary facts as air 
and earth. The study of protoplasmic 
life has not yet graduated even its first 
class in what must be known before the 
organic can be positively differentiated — 
as, for instance, vegetable from animal 
life. If there is a third fundamental cre- 
ative expression following these atomic 
and protoplasmic ones — itself a nature- 
growth in the same sense that they are — 
it is a development to be followed in the 
24 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

manner of an unfolding, and not by any 
outreach of miraculous conception. Fur- 
ther, these three are not to be lost sight 
of in any demonstration in one evolution; 
all have been equally co-existent in fact, 
varying only in the time of their expres- 
sion as phenomena. In such demonstra- 
tion, protoplasmic life, when it appears, 
explains itself as the inorganic atom 
organized, while this third expression, 
conscious Being as Ceptacle, explains all 
three where it knows itself as inorganic, 
organic, and its own Antecedent, in one 
classification. 

Heterogeneity, as it precedes the 
homogeneous in the development of the 
inorganic and organic, holds true in 
the evolution of Ceptacle, apparently un- 
folding itself as Individuality from out of 
an impersonality which appears through a 
gradually dawning consciousness of per- 
sonality. From where this Appearance 
becomes conscious Individual, it acquires 
a development by extending this con- 
25 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

sciousness back upon itself, first to its per- 
sonality, then to its impersonality, but at 
all times in its growth these constitute 
this Appearance. It must be for this 
reason that human Identity knows itself 
first as that individual body that holds 
what Mr. Huxley finds to be its only Sen- 
sorium, where human Being reaches its 
first consciousness. A study of Being, 
in its human stage as Ceptacle, must be 
that of the change from the heterogeneity 
of impersonality and personality not a 
material part of the human body, through 
that body, to where it is a homogeneous 
individuality which shall be a conscious 
Identity, including impersonality, per- 
sonality, and individuality that are with- 
out and within that body, in one Ego. 
Such a growth, in its very nature, would 
begin with a consciousness that excluded 
that objective impersonal and personal 
from its individuality. While a later 
development would bring this Ego and 
Non-Ego into the same Ceptacle as Ego 
26 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

and Alter Ego, from no change of a fun- 
damental principle, but from a higher 
expression of that Principle in a later 
phenomenon. Upon this basis the study 
of Man can proceed with a scientific phi- 
losophy which has broken down his limi- 
tations of Individual Egoism, making him 
Co-existent with his every possible Con- 
sciousness without limitation, save in his 
own Being. The progress, however, of 
this human Ceptacle and its multiple, as 
Man, must be as varied as are the indi- 
viduals who make up humanity, with 
instinct, reason, and faith marking the 
growth; but an instinct, reason, faith all 
founded upon what is and always has 
been Intelligence-Matter. 

Ceptacle, as a nature-fact, does not 
controvert the statement that "Knowl- 
edge is the knowing man or his view of 
things," but demonstrates that this 
"view" has held but half the truth. In 
Ceptacle the Content knows itself as a 
plurality. The "view" is a conjunction 
27 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

of Intelligence and Matter in and through 
man and his objective. That which 
proves to be a scientific nature-fact comes 
through a cohesive, describable conscious- 
ness by that Fact itself, as Itself. 

Thought-Phenomenon appears through 
consciousness, but this Thought-Phenom- 
enon comes through a Ceptacle whose 
contents are the Subjective and Objective 
in an inseparable relation. "In any sep- 
arate or separable thought, conception 
or perception, the subject and object are 
being thought of in the one Ceptacle 
(Prop. III.). There must be no evasion of 
the conclusion of or compromise with this 
statement, radical as it may seem. The 
words, subject and object, may be 
accepted as commonly defined; but when 
it is said, "the subject and object in any 
separate or separable thought are one 
Identity," it is meant that the Identity is 
that Ego whose subject and object, in 
their Relationing, are a realization of an 
28 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory, 

Ego that is the Being of their Identity as 
itself to itself within itself. What is said 
of any Ceptacle is as if we were treating of 
atom or protoplasm, in this, that whether 
we can trace either scientifically to one 
single entity separate and distinct from 
every other or not, is not known. Cepta- 
cles combine to form an aggregate, as 
atoms and protoplasms to form bodies. 
The law of the aggregate must, however, 
in a given way be the law of its atom, 
protoplasm, or Ceptacle. Therefore, 
where a Ceptacle is described that must, 
self-evidently, be a multiple of such, it is 
describing that which at the time has for 
its immediate consideration, the relatives 
which make it a separate being or thing 
in that particular Identity; while at the 
same time, were the relationing to change, 
the content might be made the subject 
and object of innumerable Identities. 
And whether it be a Relationing of the 
distance between the earth and a fixed 
star, or the microscopic difference in the 
29 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

length and breadth of a point, or not, in 
either case subject and object, regardless 
of the magnitude of the Ceptacle, are in 
an Identity which is their Ego-Identity. 

Ego-Identity is ''Thing-Thinking" and 
"Thought - Thinging" in itself, when 
thing-thought and thought-thing have 
become conscious Self through an evolu- 
tion, whereby that which before was not 
Self-conscious, has become so in its con- 
tact with human anatomy. Through this 
contact it has been broken or severed, as 
it were, into relatives of itself, in such a 
manner that quantity, quality, relation 
and modality appear in a conscious 
spectrum. These in turn become de- 
scribable and recognizable to such con- 
sciousness as either sight, sound, feeling, 
taste or smell. 

These, the contents of Ceptacle, Ego- 
Identity assimilates as relatives in Time 
and Space, in the same Universal Law of 
Relativity. Ego-Identity thus becomes 
a Nature-Fact through an evolution which 
30 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

includes the human anatomy, called man, 
and his objectivity, not as two distinct 
entities, but in an inseparable Identity. 
To describe Ego will be to describe Ego 
and alter Ego in one relation, not an 
impossible Ego and non-Ego. 

A true philosophy as a "Thinking view 
of Things'' will be a true Science, because 
this same philosophy as a Nature-Fact 
will be Things conscious of their own 
thinking. The demonstration of this 
Ceptacle Theory that is here outlined, 
must proceed with philosophy and sci- 
ence, relatives in one relationing, with 
something of the following method in its 
concrete application: First, let the ex- 
ample which is to serve at the time as the 
conscious consideration, include both the 
sensorium conventionally assumed in the 
subject, Man, and also the object, Thing. 
Let consciousness have ample time to 
bring into the consideration all possible 
Intelligence-Matter pertaining to this sub- 
ject and object. Second, eliminate every 
31 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

irrelevant, leaving only the subject and 
object in the analysis that bear a relation 
to each other. Then it will probably be 
found, as in the case of atom and proto- 
plasm, exceedingly doubtful whether the 
contents can be reduced to a single Cep- 
tacle, or not; but when, by elimination, 
there remains what, in this conscious con- 
sideration, appears to be a " separate being 
or thing," then this remainder should be 
subjected to the test of the Propositions 
as laid down in this theory. 

The fundamental idea in these propo- 
sitions is, that beginning with the lowest 
orders of creative expression a stage is 
reached in their development where In- 
telligence-Matter is phenomenon, having 
its expression in a Nature-Fact as Cep- 
tacle. This phenomenon in any single 
expression includes both the objective 
and subjective within itself — that is, it 
cannot be confined or limited to either 
relative. The interlacing of these com- 
bined relatives of Intelligence-Matter, as 
32 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

their activity, is their "Being" and the 
measure of the development. 

We use another illustration as an aid 
toward enabling us to discern a Cep- 
tacle. Let an outlined tree be the Object 
of a perception. Confined to its simple 
outlines, apart from its environments, 
these outlines and such of their contents 
as are perceived or seen, may be said to 
be crude matter relative to an evolving 
Ceptacle. The human subject, perceiv- 
ing this tree and separated from it by 
intervening space, we will say, has on his 
part evolved no more, in a relation to this 
object, than merely enables him to 
include the tree within his function of 
vision. Thus it is a crude matter relative 
to the evolution of this same Ceptacle. 
These relative conceptions, vision and 
tree, are at one and the same time in a 
co-relating, active relationing, which, as 
activity, will be the product of the natural 
law accounting for that phenomenon as 
it shall be discerned to be, which is neces- 
33 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

sarily the order of their Being, or what 
they are in that particular relation as sci- 
entific facts. Subject and Object in this 
hypothesis (Prop. III.) are in the same 
Ceptacle, however large or small. So in 
this case are Tree, Man, and intervening 
relative Space in one Ceptacle. We do 
not need to say that intervening Space in 
any Ceptacle is a filled space, not a 
vacuum. In this example it will aid us, 
in a way, to consider this spatial fact as 
we do the visible one, as a tangible 
thing, if we note that it is occupied by 
that which, when exposed to the sensitized 
plate of a camera at any point in this 
Ceptacle space where the vision fails, will 
reveal either the Man-Subject or Tree- 
Object as an actual existent relation in 
this space; thus indicating that there is a 
relationing of Intelligence-Matter at all 
points within the domain of this Ceptacle, 
which consists of a tangible medium 
amply sufficient to form its contents. 
The evolution of this particular Man- 
34 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

Tree-Relationing from its assumed crude 
beginning will be the gradual Realization 
of its own Being as its own Identity, 
through the quantity, quality, relation 
and modality of this content as it becomes 
a " cohesive, recognizable and describ- 
able" consciousness. While this is only 
another way of describing that which is 
conventionally called a "knowledge" of 
these same facts, it is, nevertheless, with 
a vital and fundamental difference in the 
"point of view" of related Subject and 
Object, whereby such facts become 
Knowledge. The conventional accepta- 
tion of such Knowledge, of this Man-Tree 
fact, places conscious knowledge onty at 
the point of the man or subject; yet a 
common but unexplained acceptance of 
an equally well-known fact is that the 
Man is positive in his consciousness of 
the tree as at its place in that objectivity. 
May it not be a fact that Consciousness 
is possible development in Ceptacle at the 
point of its Tree-Relative, as it is con- 
35 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

scious at the point of its Man-Relative? 
The Tree-Relative not being as highly 
evolved a phenomenon in the Ceptacle as 
the Man-Relative, the latter apparently 
takes all consciousness to itself. That 
which makes consciousness a phenome- 
non at all in this particular case, is prob- 
ably due largely to molecular activity in 
the Tree, the Atmosphere, and the Man, 
by which all are in one and the same 
natural law of active relationing. 

In this contact with the Man as a rela- 
tive of a higher order, the phenomenon 
Consciousness, is making its appearance 
through the Man-relative, and from this 
point of the contact it proceeds to per- 
vade the whole Ceptacle, according to its 
measure of development. There was no 
evolved Consciousness in the intervening 
Space until the phenomenon of molecular 
movement of light and air had become an 
evolved Knowledge as part of the Cep- 
tacle. Then it was that Identity, through 
this Consciousness, Knew itself "in this 
36 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

intervening space," as well as at Man 
and Tree, and began to Realize that Self 
under certain conditions, which it discov- 
ered through a sensitized Camera plate, 
as well as in other ways, as a relative 
brought into the Ceptacle. The fullness 
of the Being, not of man or tree or inter- 
vening space, but of their Ego-Identity, 
in this Ceptacle, will be the measure of 
the development of the Contents until 
this Being will, by contact, thrill with a 
Consciousness of all its relatives in every 
part. 

In the evolution of this particular Cep- 
tacle, we will assume, what is generally 
accepted to be true, that the Tree as 
Species preceded Man in the order of 
creative expression; that is, before man 
the tree was. It may be asked, How 
was this Tree-Identity preserved? The 
reply is, That Oak-Identity was always 
retained in the Acorn. The quantity, 
quality, relation, and modality of the 
Oak, as a tree in its full growth, was 
37 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

always preserved in the Acorn as an un- 
evolved Conscious-Oak-Identity, having 
Time and Space for its relatives. The 
ratio of these Time and Space relatives, 
as will be found true when Ceptacle ap- 
pears, is greater or less than any assign- 
able difference (Prop. III.), and therefore in 
the Acorn, the Oak continues in its Time 
relative its future extension or growth 
constrained and intensioned in its Space 
relative while waiting for that extension. 
The conditions being in accord, the ratio 
of relatives being greater or less than any 
assignable difference, no Time can be so 
extended or Space so intensioned as to 
destroy this Oak-Identity. How much 
of this Identity other relatives outside 
.this Acorn held, in what had been or 
should be the quantity, quality, relation 
and modality of its expression as Oak, 
must be for the present speculative. If, 
however, we thus see where the Oak is, 
when the Acorn is its only residuum, it 
may help us to trace Ceptacle, where, in 
38 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

our example, Tree and Intervening Space 
have ceased in their objective reality, and 
man or some part of man, through which 
Ceptacle evolves, is the only residuum. 
This Man-Tree-Ceptacle from the full- 
ness of its realism in its extension, where 
it included the Subjective and Objective, 
recedes as that objective relative experi- 
ence recedes, to where it becomes an 
ideal-realism in an intension, which idea as 
Identity, is still Intelligence-Matter (Def.), 
an impression now of what it was in 
that experience as expression. The Oak, 
from the fullness of its growth as a tree, 
in its recession, became in the Acorn the 
impression as intension of what had been 
Oak-Expression. So this Man-Tree-Cep- 
tacle preserves for renewed expression its 
Ego-Identity as impression in some part 
of the Intelligence-Matter of its human 
Anatomy-Relative, with at least this 
difference between Oak-Identity pre- 
served in the Acorn, and Man-Tree-Iden- 
tity preserved in or through the human 
39 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

body, that the Ego-Identity of the latter, 
in Ceptacle, is evolved consciousness of 
itself within Itself, which it retains or 
can energize in its extension; whereas 
Oak-Identity is at a stage in the evolu- 
tion of an unevolved consciousness, either 
in its intension or extension. 

Subconsciousness, Memory, Experi- 
ence, Idea, and such terms must find 
their scientific explanation as the Ego- 
Identity of a Ceptacle which is being pre- 
served in some part of the Intelligence- 
Matter constituting the human anatomy. 
There is a wide realm for speculation 
regarding possible Intelligence-Matter 
outside of that anatomy, through, in or 
by which this Ego-Identity may also be 
preserving itself as its past experience for 
a future expression. At present, how- 
ever, it is only possible to trace this Cep- 
tacle through what has already evolved. 
Mind and Matter, when this Ceptacle has 
receded to an impression, confined, so far 
as we can discern it, to the human anat- 
4 o 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

omy, is as inseparable as Subconscious- 
ness, Memory, Experience, or Idea as 
when it included its original material ob- 
jective Tree; the difference being, as we 
now discern it, that the material part of the 
Ceptacle containing the Identity is now in 
the human body, as the Oak was in the 
Acorn. We need hardly say that any 
Ceptacle which had for its original sub- 
jective and objective expression no more 
than the human body itself — as for 
instance, a Man thinking of the pain in 
his own foot — is to be treated by the 
same method as this Man-Tree example. 
But there is something more to be said 
in following this Man-Tree Ceptacle from 
where we have traced it to an Ego-Iden- 
tity preserved in the human anatomy. In 
this same anatomy is being preserved 
every other Ego-Identity of its past ex- 
perience, which experience is not neces- 
sarily confined to this particular anatomy, 
for the Natural Law of Heredity will find 
in the ovum that transmits itself as its pos- 
4 1 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

terity, Time and Space relatives sufficient 
as Intelligence-Matter to contain the sum 
of all its line of Ego-Identities in all its 
own or its transmitted experiences. This 
fact is, we believe, now accepted without 
question. While what is called hereditary 
character thus requires the law of an 
inexhaustible ratio of relatives to account 
for its transmission as the residuum of 
innumerable past experiences in the 
space allotted to the formative cell of the 
human body, it demands quite as much 
the law for the formative structure of a 
Ceptacle accounting for Ego-Identity 
which is that transmitted character itself. 
The "Man-Tree" is Intelligence-Matter 
furnishing structure, as it were, for its 
Ceptacle, in a like manner with this Ana- 
tomical cell furnishing structure for its 
Ego-Identity, which, as character, is being 
retained preparatory to a new expression. 
Whether any Individual or Personal Ego- 
Identity, as the Being of Thought and 
Thing — that is, of Intelligence-Matter — 
42 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

is limited in its transmission to a direct 
line of descent through an anatomical 
ovum from human body to human body, 
or not, is exceedingly doubtful. Why 
this Being of Identity should be confined 
to the human body-relative in the Cep- 
tacle for its preservation is not clear, yet 
the evidence is not at hand which enables 
us to follow it at this time save through 
that relative; probably for the reason be- 
fore remarked, that in the evolution of 
Ceptacle at its present stage the human 
relative dominates the development in 
consciousness. 

The contention here outlined (Prop. 
III.) is, that in any separate or separable 
thought the subject and object thought 
are in the same Ceptacle. If this be true, 
what we call Thought as a phenomenon 
of Mind, with Mind something entirely 
apart and capable of being differentiated 
from Matter, is an impossibility, and 
never was and never can be. Thought- 
Ceptacle has its relatives in a material 
43 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

objective outside, together with some part 
of the human body, or in a material ob- 
jective confined in that body, as the case 
may be. If the Ceptacle, as in the case 
of the Man-Tree, has not one of its rela- 
tives in an objective material tree, then 
it has that relative in an equally material 
objective within the human body, which 
is Intelligence-Matter sufficient for such 
Ceptacle. Thus we may have a Man- 
Tree-Ceptacle where there is no material 
tree, save as it is in the Imagination; but 
Imagination is not pure Mind, but Mind 
and Matter, for it is Ego-Identity, know- 
ing itself in and through a Ceptacle 
formed from Intelligence-Matter solely 
in the human anatomy. The Being of 
that Man-Tree experience which occurred 
in that original Ceptacle, where Man and 
Tree were both material relatives and 
where its Man-Tree-Identity was Realized, 
preserves that Identity in the Intelligence- 
Matter which the human body furnishes, 
just as the Oak-Identity preserved itself 
44 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

in the Intelligence-Matter which the 
Acorn furnished. There are innumerable 
ways in which this Identity stored in this 
human body may be aroused to a Con- 
sciousness of Itself; and the cell structure 
of this human body may be made to fur- 
nish its material for a re-Realization of 
that Ceptacle in this form of Conscious- 
ness. For this is only another way of 
describing a thought of a past experience, 
but with this difference, that Thought- 
Phenomenon is a Ceptacle with a structure 
of Intelligence - Matter, and not pure 
Mind. 

Auto-Suggestion forms its Ceptacle out 
of Intelligence-Matter. In an experi- 
ment which I have just seen quoted, a 
professor tells his audience that he is 
going to open the bottle which he is hold- 
ing, and that he wishes them to note care- 
fully the exceedingly volatile and pungent 
odor as it escapes from the bottle and 
goes out through the room, and asks 
them to tell him how quickly they smell 
45 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

it. Slowly he removes the cork, and at 
the same time dwells, in words as well as 
actions, upon its odoriferous nature. Im- 
mediately upon its supposed escape, the 
spectators begin to lift their hands, those 
nearest the stage being the first to indi- 
cate that they had noticed the odor. As 
a fact, there was no odor to escape, and 
it had been a case of imagination from 
auto-suggestion. The explanation is, that 
the first Ceptacle is the one in which the 
dominating relative is the subject, Man 
with bottle; the other relative, objective 
spectators. This Ceptacle includes a 
quantity, quality, relation and modality 
that, at a point in that Ceptacle, is either 
seeing or hearing, or both, as a function, 
on the part of the spectators. This has 
aroused or put into activity an Ego- 
Identity of some one or more past odor 
experiences preserved in the minds of the 
spectators, and this Identity forms an 
entirely separate smell Ceptacle out of 
Intelligence-Matter in those minds, which 
4 6 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

is a re-Realization of some past smell 
experience not in any way a part of 
that first material subjective, Man with 
bottle. Fecundation of Ceptacle, and 
the development of growth therefrom, is 
in the same classification with atom and 
protoplasm, proceeding along similar 
lines. Auto-Suggestion is probably but 
a term expressing this fact. This is also 
the explanation of the statement that 
*' Beauty is constituted by the objectifica- 
tion of pleasure." But the thing objecti- 
fied in this succeeding Beauty-Ceptacle 
is in the human mind which is having this 
sense of pleasure, though it comes as 
Fecundation or Auto-Suggestion from or 
through a contact which has one of its 
relatives outside of that body. Ceptacle 
not only lives on its past, but grows or 
develops on its present in an objectifica- 
tion of this past and present, but only 
where Intelligence-Matter is present, and 
not, according to so much philososphical 
teaching, where there is Mind to the ex- 
47 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

elusion of Matter or Matter to the exclu- 
sion of Mind, or where, in this sense, there 
is such a condition as Mind over Matter 
or Matter over Mind. This teaching and 
these expressions grow out of the fact 
that Realization of their joint Being, as 
their Identity, does indicate in the devel- 
opment, the varying stages of that devel- 
opment, in a dominance of one over the 
other, which is the measure of their evo- 
lution. In this instance consciousness is 
more largely realized in a particular Cep- 
tacle, but in no case can that dominance 
reach a point where either relative alto- 
gether disappears in the ratio, except with 
the simultaneous disappearance of the 
Ceptacle itself from all possible conscious- 
ness. The order of the development 
which is outlined in Propositions I. and II. 
reaches Conscious-Thought-Phenomenon 
only at Proposition III., where, for the 
first, it has produced itself in a measure 
by which it can describe itself to itself as 
indicated in Proposition II. it must do. 
4 8 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

This Ego-Identity, which becomes 
Thought-Phenomenon, in its conscious 
expression to or of Itself, has that ex- 
pression to or of itself in words which 
would seem to have their roots in the 
law of its being as natural law. The Prin- 
ciple of " Being" puts forth the verb, ex- 
pressive of existence, as in English, for 
instance, the words, "To be" or "I am"; 
and just as this Being is, in all its varia- 
tions, but some phase of its one Being, so 
every Verb-Word is but some phase of 
the verb expressing existence. In a sim- 
ilar manner, Relationing puts forth the 
qualifying words of language, which are 
in fact only descriptive of the quantity, 
quality, relation and modality of Intelli- 
gence-Matter. These have been broken 
into this category by a contact with the 
human relative, acting as a spectrum, 
where in the Ceptacle they become sight, 
hearing, smell, taste and touch. 

The structure of Language is not a 
mere convenience, adopted by mankind, 
49 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

as if it might or might not have been, but 
is the product of profound principles, 
having their foundation in natural laws 
that will account for such product, as the 
laws of vegetation account for plant 
growth, or any other law for its species. 
Out of these laws, not through the mere 
volition or whim of man, does Thought 
Phenomenon clothe itself for its own ex- 
pression. It is no poetic fancy to call 
" Language the brightest flower in life." 
It is a natural phenomenon, and its ex- 
pression as its ''brightest flower" is con- 
fined to man because in its evolution the 
phenomenon apparently gives birth to 
the "verb" only through the human anat- 
omy. Without the verb it is not improb- 
able that language would reach a cer- 
tain limited development in the animals 
below man. In man alone does the verb 
obtain growth, the reason being that in 
man alone does "Being" reach a relation- 
ing that Knows itself in the expressions 
"I am, To be" or their equivalent. 
50 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

Subject and Object have their relation in 
the lower orders, but they are at a stage 
where the Ceptacle has not evolved suffi- 
ciently to start that Tap-Root of language, 
the verb " To Be," which is to be the ex- 
pression of the Being of that subject and 
object relationing, where they thus realize 
their Identity, and can express that Iden- 
tity, just as that subject and object have 
been expressing themselves in their Intel- 
ligence-Matter in their preceding stages. 
It is by no chance of grammatical rules 
that subject and object have their process 
in this verb. It is not the result of 
scholasticism that adjectives and qualify- 
ing words cannot be Thought except in 
an inseparable relation of comparison, in 
one word expressive of one relationing 
idea. It is so because the word and its 
behavior are effects of natural law, and 
not the arbitrary result of scholastic con- 
struction of language. There is yet to 
be evolved a verb-word describing the 
activity of plurality in a conscious ulti- 
5i 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

mate, the need of which is shown in the 
construction of this hypothesis. Wipe out 
all language, and it will construct itself as 
trees obtain their growth, all effort of man 
to the contrary, and along the same lines 
as now, where one set of words will be the 
expression for the "Being" of its Iden- 
tity, as the process going on within it, and 
all other words will be the expression of 
the relationing of the ratio of the rela- 
tives occurring in the Ceptacle-phenome- 
non. Take the verb out of language, 
and subject and object, as Ceptacle, will 
revert in the same manner and for the 
same reason that if we take life out of the 
plant it will revert to a lower order of 
expression. 

Upon the principle of Evolution and 
mathematical demonstration may depend 
the verification for the Fourth Proposi- 
tion, " That when in any Ceptacle the 
Nature of the ratio of its relatives, in its 
unassignable difference, becomes con- 
52 



n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■-!- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

scious Identity, then its unused capabilities 
become an inseparable present in such 
Ceptacle." The contents of Ceptacle as 
a creative expression in their substance 
as coherence, measurable by Time and 
Space, may have for that expression Con- 
stants that are fixed quantities expressed 
in terms, as 1,2, 3, 4; pound, yard, hour, 
etc., finite measures as given definites. 
But these are not subjects that have their 
consideration in Proposition IV.; instead 
here are considered Ceptacles whose 
definite quantity is the given value of a 
quantity essentially variable, or an indefi- 
nite quantity which is a quantity essen- 
tially variable, through all degrees of 
diminution or augmentation short of ab- 
solute Nothingness or Infinitude. In a 
Ceptacle, expressed in the word "line," 
defined as a succession of points, the value 
is of a quantity essentially variable, which 
may also be an Indefinite quantity capable 
of every degree of augmentation or 
diminution. In such Ceptacle is realized, 
53 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

first, a Ratio of Quantity, then the Nature 
of the ratio itself. But Substance, Ratio, 
and Nature are, alike, an Evolution. 
Ultimate Ratio, Ultimate Quantity and 
the Absolute or Infinite Nature appear and 
disappear with the Ceptacle in a law of 
one evolution, and the appearance is 
neither a phantom nor the disappearance 
an evanescence. The Infinite, together 
with the Unconditioned, appear and dis- 
appear in and with the phenomenon itself. 
For if Proposition I. be true, any separate 
or separable quantity is a thing of rela- 
tives, a plurality. Once this is proven, 
then quantity, as a separate or separable 
thing, the content of a Ceptacle, is sub- 
ject logically and mathematically to a 
consideration heretofore applied only to 
quantities, and not to qua?itity. 

If we will refer to the known method 
relating to "Quantities and the Ratio of 
Quantities," the method will be equally 
true in its application to Quantity and to 
the Ratio of its Relatives. For the pur- 
54 



I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ITTTfTTTT m 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 ■ 1 I I 1 1 1 , 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

pose of proving the Nature of the Ratio set 
forth in Proposition IV., let us follow the 
method taken by Professor Wright, in his 
"Commentary on Newton's Principia,"* 
substituting, as we assume our Hypothesis 
warrants, Quantity and the Ratio of its 
Relatives, for "Quantities and the Ratio 
of Quantities." 

LEMMA I. 

"Quantities and the Ratios of Quanti- 
ties." Hereby Newton would infer the 
truth of the Lemma, not only for quanti- 
ties measurable by Integers, but also for 
such as may be denoted by Vulgar Frac- 
tions. The necessity or use of the dis- 
tinction is none, there being just as much 
reason for specifying all other sorts of 
quantities. The truth of the Lemma 
does not depend upon the Species of 
quantities, but upon their conformity with 
the following conditions, viz: 

"That they (Relatives in Quantity, our 

*Wright, A. B., Commentary on Newton's Principia, 
Sec. i, Book I. 

55 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

hypothesis assumed) tend continually to 
equality, and approach nearer to each other 
than by a?iy give?i difference. They must 
tend co?iti?iually to equality — that is, every 
Ratio of their successive corresponding 
values must be nearer and nearer a Ratio 
of Equality, the number of these converg- 
ences being without end. By given dif- 
ference is merely meant any that can be 
assigned or proposed. 

■ ' Finite Time. — Newton obviously intro- 
duces the idea of time in this enunciation 
to show illustratively that he supposes 
the quantities to converge continually 
to equality, without ever actually reach- 
ing or passing that state; and since to 
fix such an idea, he says, 'Before the 
end of that time.' It was, moreover, 
necessary to consider the time Finite. 
Hence, our author would avoid the charge 
of 'Fallacia Suppositions, ' or of 'Shift- 
ing the Hypothesis' For it is contended 
that if you frame certain relations be- 
tween actual quantities, and afterwards 
56 



ffrmm 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 nTniiiiiiiiiiiiiirmrmiiiiiiiiiimiiiin 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

deduce conclusions from such relations 
on the supposition of the quantities hav- 
ing vanished, such conclusions are illogic- 
ally deduced, and ought no more to sub- 
sist than the quantities themselves. 

1 ' In the Scholium, at the end of the sec- 
tion, he is more explicit. He says: The 
Ultimate Ratios, in zvhich quantities vanish , 
are not in reality the Ratios of Ultimate 
quantities ; but the Limits to which the Ratios 
of quantities, continually decreasing, always 
approach; which they never can pass beyond or 
arrive at, unless the quantities are continually 
and indefi?utely diminished. After all, how- 
ever, neither our author himself nor any 
of his commentators, though much has 
been advanced upon the subject, has 
obviated this objection. Bishop Berke- 
ley's ingenious criticisms in the Analyst 
remain to this day unanswered. He 
therein facetiously denominates the 
result obtained from the supposition 
that the quantities before considered 
finite and real have vanished, the ' Ghosts 
57 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

of Departed Quantities? And it must be 
admitted there is reason as well as wit in 
the appellation. The fact is, Newton 
himself, if we may judge from his own 
words in the above cited Scholium, where 
he says, 'If two quantities whose Differ- 
ence Is Given are augmented continually, 
their Ultimate Ratio will be a Ratio of 
Equality,' had no knowledge of the true 
nature of his Method of Prime and Ulti- 
mate Ratios. If there be meaning in 
words, he plainly supposes in this pas- 
sage a mere approximation to be the same 
with an Ultimate Ratio. He loses sight 
of the condition expressed in Lemma 
I. — namely, that the quantities tend to equal- 
ity nearer than by any assignable difference 
by supposing the difference of the quan- 
tities continually augmented to be given, 
or always the same. In this sense the 
whole Earth, compared with the whole 
Earth minus a grain of sand, would con- 
stitute an Ultimate Ratio of equality; 
whereas so long as any, the minutest dif- 
53 



friTTM 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ■TrTfTTTlTTTfTlTITmillllllllllllllirillllllllllllllUJLU^ 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

ference, exists between two quantities, 
they cannot be said to be more than nearly 
equal. But it is now to be shown, that if 
two quaiitities tend continually to equality, and 
approach to one another nearer than by any 
assignable difference, their Ratio is Ultimately 
a Ratio of Absolute equality. This may be 
demonstrated as follows, even without 
supposing the quantities ultimately 
evanescent: 

''It is acknowledged by all writers on 
Algebra, and, indeed, self-evident, that if 
in any equation put =0, there be quantities 
absolutely different in kind, the aggre- 
gate of each species is separately equal 
to o. For example, if 



A + a+B v /2 + bv / 2 + CV-i=o, 

since A + a is rational, (B + b) V 2 surd 
and CV — i imaginary, they cannot in 
any way destroy one another by the op- 
position of signs, and therefore 

A + a = o, B -+- b = o, C — o. 
" In the same manner, if logarithms, 
59 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

exponentials, or any other quantities dif- 
fering essentially from one another con- 
stitute an equation like the above, they 
must separately be equal to o. This 
being premised, let L, \J denote the 
Limits, whatever they are, towards which 
the quantities L + 1, L' + V continually 
converge, and suppose their difference, 
in any state of the convergence, to be D. 
Then 

L + 1-L'-1'=D, 
or L-L' +l-l'-D=o, 

and since L, L' are fixed and definite, and 

1, V and D always variable, the former 

are independent of the latter, and we have 

L 

L — L' = o, or L' = 1, accurately. 

"This way of considering the question, 
it is presumed, will be deemed free from 
every objection. The principle upon 
which it rests depending upon the Nature 
of the variable quantities, and not upon 
their evanescence, as it is equally true 
6o 



iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmiix^ 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

even for constant quantities, provided 
they be of different natures, it is hoped 
we have at length hit upon the true and 
logical method of expounding the doc- 
trine of Prime and Ultimate Ratios, or of 
Fluxions, or of the Differential Calcu- 
lus, etc." 

It may be here remarked, in passing, 
that the method of Indeterminate Coefficients, 
which is at bottom the same as that of 
Prime and Ultimate Ratios, is treated 
illogically in most books of Algebra. 
Instead of "Shifting the hypothesis," as 
is done in Wood, Bonnycastle, and 
others, by making x = o, in the equation, 

a + bx + ex 2 + dx 3 + = o, 

it is sufficient to know that each term x 
being indefinitely variable, is heterogene- 
ous compared with the rest, and conse- 
quently that each term must equal o." 

The Logical test of this Theory is 
reached when it is to be shown, that, 
whatever may be their given definition, 
61 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

in human consciousness the Infinite and 
Absolute have their Identity within a 
finite Ceptacle by virtue of its Nature as 
a variable quantity. The unfolding of the 
propositions in this hypothesis, if sus- 
tained in truth, leads to the inevitable 
conclusion that any conscious Ego and 
what has been termed Non-Ego, as sepa- 
rable entities in that consciousness, is 
neither philosophic nor scientific. That 
this so termed Non-Ego is in fact some 
degree of Ego itself as its relative Alter 
Ego. Should this latter position prove 
tenable, then the conclusion continues that 
that " Primitive dualism of consciousness 
from which the explanations of philos- 
ophy must take their start, and which 
includes the fundamental condition to all 
consciousness the antithesis of subject and 
object" will find its consistent explana- 
tion in the Nature of Ego, as set forth in 
this Ceptacle Theory. 

It is the "dualism" of the phenomenon 
that is conscious, without which dualism 
62 



; 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ • >^> • • • • -^ 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

the phenomenon is not. It is expressing 
itself, in its own Identity, as or with this 
dualism. The immediacy of this dualism 
is change, while the immediacy of this 
change is the phenomenon as its own 
Being. 

When the phenomenon is an evolved 
conscious one, it is the consciousness of 
Being. When it has reached a stage in its 
evolution where it is Being in conscious- 
ness, the Identity of that phenomenon, it is 
its Ego-Identity, the identity of that dual- 
ism as relationing, of relatives without 
which the phenomenon is not. Ego, and 
Being that reaches Ego-Identity as phe- 
nomenon in consciousness, are equivalents. 
While the terms descriptive of the rela- 
tives, in their variety as evolving phe- 
nomena from the lowest to the highest 
order of expression, vary as the varieties 
vary, the principle remains unchanged. 
So that when Ego-Identity appears, the 
terms, subject and object, are in one clas- 
sification with all others as descriptive of 
63 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

the relatives in this Ego-Identity, as 
inseparable likeness and difference, the 
Being of one Identity. 

The law of one evolution, accounting 
for the various successive changes occur- 
ring in phenomena, holds in the case of 
the human Ego. As now being consid- 
ered, this Ego has reached the stage indi- 
cated in Proposition IV. It is held that 
the activity of this dualism is continuous, 
ceaseless; that when this activity, or 
motion, appears in its immediacy as Being 
conscious of itself, it is a consciousness 
of its ceaselessness, its continuity, in a 
ratio of its relatives, the Nature of which 
ratio is greater or less than any differ- 
ence assignable in that consciousness. The 
antithesis of the relatives constituting the 
phenomenon thus finds its synthesis in 
the same phenomenon, when the Nature 
of its cause appears. 

" Nature," denned by J. S. Mill, 
"means the sum of all phenomena, to- 
gether with the causes which produce 
6 4 



IHtllltlllliniininiiiiiniiiiinnnn.. ...... 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

them, including not only all that happens, 
but all that is capable of happening, the 
unused capabilities of causes being as 
much a part of this idea of nature as those 
which take effect." 

Should the continuous activity of this 
dualism cease for an instant, this Being 
itself, which is its immediacy, would cease. 
It is, therefore, the Nature of the activity 
that is the Cause of that Being. But 
here it is to be shown that when this 
Being, which is the being of the phe- 
nomenon, has ceased in consciousness, as 
it does, it is not the annihilation of the 
phenomenon, but the limitation of that 
phenomenon in its Ultimate at the point 
of an unassignable difference in conscious- 
ness where the ratio with its relatives dis- 
appears in that Nature. If the cause of 
this phenomenon has been realized in the 
phenomenon itself, as appears to be true 
when the Nature of that phenomenon in 
its continuity as motion is a conscious 
Identity as its own Being, then this Cause 
65 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

is an inseparable present at every point 
in the phenomenon. Therefore, it is 
present at the point where, in conscious- 
ness, it has reached its Limiting- Ratio as 
such continuity. But at this point it 
cannot be an annihilation of those rela- 
tives where consciousness disappears, for 
that would be the annihilation of the 
Cause itself, which is in the phenomenon, 
a conclusion that would be a logical ab- 
surdity. It is this fact which Ego-Iden- 
tity realizes as its Absolute and Infinite 
Nature, when it realizes its Being as Self- 
Existent and Self-Sufficient, and inde- 
pendent in nature and action as the Cause 
of existent phenomenon. No definition 
of the Absolute or Infinite can be in the 
sense of completion or finality. For the 
end or completion of this ceaseless change 
would be the annihilation of the very Being 
itself as the Self- Existent, again a logical 
absurdity. The Absolute and Infinite are 
a realized completeness and finality. But 
only in the sense that they are all inclusive 
66 



n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n n i tti nil 



iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinimiiiui^^^^ 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

of Cause and Effect, as each appears in 
the dualism of consciousness. The sum 
of the phenomena in Ego-Identity, 
including not only the phenomenon, but 
its Antecedent unused capabilities as 
Cause, in the highest development of a 
Ceptacle, reaches a consciousness of itself 
in its evolution when one of its relatives 
is the Antecedent of its Being, the other 
is the phenomenon itself, the expressed of 
that Antecedent, as Subject and Object in 
an inseparable Present. Proof that in this 
Ceptacle the Absolute and Infinite is 
Itself. 

DEDUCTIONS. 

Should this Theory attain an accepted 
place in a scientific philosophy, or be 
suggestive of one that will, it will be 
because Ceptacle is a thing of life. As 
such it unfolds in a natural development, 
indicating a correlation between inorganic 
and organic nature facts and forces upon 
one side, and human development upon 
67 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

the other, where the latter becomes 
what is known as physics, metaphysics, 
aesthetics, ethics, and theology. If it lives, 
it lives the Identity of each one of these 
scientifically. 

In Physics, instinct, which controls as 
intelligence the behavior of the undevel- 
oped physical, is Metaphysics when that 
physical has evolved man and his con- 
scious reason in Ceptacle. It should fol- 
low, therefore, that in their correlation 
the physical instinctively directs that 
metaphysical, though the opposite is held 
generally, for metaphysics can be but 
instinctive-physics become conscious of 
its method. If this be true, the welfare 
of the higher development will come with 
a more comprehensive knowledge of the 
lower. The study of micro-organism in 
the human body will be an education of 
the metaphysical for a proper cultivation 
of the growth of that body, not as a 
physical organism only, but in its meta- 
physical development as well, which in 
68 



liimiimmilljminTm m 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

their correlation is the individualism 
through which each is evolving as Cep- 
tacle. The psychology of nutrition and 
elimination, recognized by scientists, pre- 
serving the micro-organism of the physical 
body, is forming the psychology recog- 
nized by metaphysicists, preserving the 
mentality of that body. For the truth 
of this, will physicists note the in- 
separable correlation of physics and 
metaphysics in the failure to sever in 
micro-organism its intelligence from its 
matter-side, following this with the further 
effort to separate this same intelligence in 
this lower order of expression from the 
behavior which governs as law that larger 
human intelligence in man, and which 
Propositions II. and III. hold to be the law 
of its Ceptacle-Expression. The psychol- 
ogy which physicists accord to micro- 
organism in connection with the sense of 
touch, sight, nutrition, and fecundation in 
cell life, is a life of relationing, though it 
be called instinctive. It is this psychic- 
69 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

relationing that these propositions hold 
that becomes Ceptacle, and to do this they 
must also hold that it is the same micro- 
organic sense of touch, sight, nutrition, 
and fecundation that becomes human 
touch, sight, nutrition, and fecundation. 
Which also accounts for human activity 
where that activity becomes art, science, 
society, and government. 

Atom, microbe and idea are in one 
classification as intelligence-matter, the 
habits of the first being the intelligent 
activity of the last in the human body. 
They live as physical expressions, as the 
various functions of this body, as the 
totality accounting for this body's Ego- 
Identity. Following this view, it is at 
once seen what a field is opened, for 
every micro-organism entering into that 
body is accountable to its individu- 
ality under the guidance of self-conscious 
idea. Every sensibility, every passion, 
every ambition has its roots embedded 
in the habits of a tissue or a cell. Yet 
70 



llllllinillllllllllllllllllllliiiiiMMiiiininiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiun^^^^— ^ 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

its sacredness has been in no whit de- 
stroyed; it is more than ever the temple 
of the ever-living Antecedent of its 
Being, now made manifest by this meta- 
physical. 

Metaphysics, so closely allied to 
physics, we have already outlined in con- 
nection with this hypothesis. The Iden- 
tity of the idea, which has revealed itself 
to itself in Ceptacle, the argument has 
already endeavored to show, reveals itself 
to itself as its own Antecedent, where the 
embedded roots of this metaphysical, 
beyond the physical expression, is con- 
nected with and expressed in that phys- 
ical in its very Nature. 

In Esthetics, Ceptacle-Identity becomes 
the sole measure of its own pleasure and 
pain. It is not meant by this that it may 
be exempt from either at will, but that 
there is no responsibility within limita- 
tions, beyond itself for the measure of 
71 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory, 

either as a part of itself. In yEsthetic- 
Ceptacle-Identity should be disclosed the 
reason of pleasure and pain. Esthetics 
is the conscious relationing of Ceptacle 
to itself in being its Identity as its own 
quality. The Identity is the consciousness 
of its varying quality as its relatives. 
The positive and negative of anv attrac- 
tion, affinity or passion, are not a com- 
parison of two differing things, but the 
varying degree of the same thing in a 
relation with itself. An aesthetic Cep- 
tacle is an expression where the relatives 
are desires or aversions, as the qualitative 
phases of whatever intelligence-matter is 
having conscious knowledge of itself, in 
the varying degrees of Identity possible 
to the range of such desire or aversion 
to the point where either changes to the 
other. This Identity extends and con- 
trasts in consciouness, as itself, over the 
field of this varying ratio, in a limited 
volition, as its will of what shall constitute 
that conscious Identity. If it extends this 
72 



rillllllHIHllllllllllllllllllimmmm 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

as desire or pleasure to where the ratio 
would be an excess of that conscious desire 
or pleasure, and where it would become 
in any degree an aversion, it is itself the 
creator of that aversion in a new Ceptacle. 
Desire and pleasure, aversion and pain, are 
synonymous in this sense. ^Esthetics is 
the being of the psychic-relations in Intel- 
ligence-Matter, animate or inanimate, 
when these reach the human develop- 
ment. Gravitation, Affinity, and Affection 
are in one classification. A strained, over- 
tensioned gravitation, or chemical affinity, 
changes its characteristic, and an Identity 
of overstrained or oversustained affection 
will produce a similar result, and for the 
same fundamental reason. As /Esthetics, 
Ceptacle absorbs and retains, as its Identity, 
in the intelligence-matter of the human 
anatomy its qualitative experiences, which 
are the gravitations and affinities of its en- 
vironment, in their positive and negative 
phases. The beautiful and repulsive of 
nature furnish the materials of this Iden- 
73 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

tity thus held. These are its pleasures 
and its pains, and this Identity is what it 
objectifies again in subsequent combina- 
tions of itself, in future relations with 
environment. Identity obtains these as 
that original molecular activity which 
comes into its larger development where 
it knows itself in Ceptacle in a relation 
with itself. The Artist is more of Art as 
he is more of a nature Ceptacle, as, for 
instance, in sound as more tones come 
into that Identity, or in sight more color. 
In either, it is but more molecular activ- 
ity coming into that Identity's spectrum, 
where the musical scale of eight notes, or 
the seven colors of the rainbow, are the 
conventional beginning common to almost 
all sound and sight Ceptacles. Discord, 
severed relation, begins where the rela- 
tive tones or colors constituting a single 
Ceptacle end. Thus will one Ceptacle 
continue true to itself, in the blending of 
a desirable tone with its finer subdivisions, 
after a less developed one will have lost 
74 



liiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiHiiiiiiiniiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiimiuinmijiiiiiuiignii" 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

that tone in an undeveloped Identity 
of it. 

As evidence that the human voice must 
look to some law more profound than any 
written one supposedly conceived by the 
musical profession for the basis of its 
development, it would only seem neces- 
sary to note this fact. That any given tone 
is produced, through the vocal organs, 
by an exact number of vibrating undula- 
tions, reaching into the thousands, and 
that the instantaneous change from this 
tone, as a desire of Identity, to another 
and different, but equally exact, number of 
vibrations constituting another tone, could 
only be accomplished by an Identity that 
has its relationing of such infinite activity 
by virtue of being a nature-fact, in the 
same sense that whatever as instinct is 
guiding accurately that incalculable mo- 
lecular activity, is the same intelligence 
guiding any human artist as his art in his 
conscious desires and aversions produced 
as human chords and discords. 
75 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

Ethics, in the order of the development 
of Ceptacle, should follow ^Esthetics, as 
later and more exact in accounting to its 
conscious self for the method of its activ- 
ity. Con-science should, therefore, be 
what the word indicates, more exact, 
possibly scientific, to the extent of a 
mathematical demonstration, more than 
mere aesthetic consciousness. It is not, 
therefore, unreasonable at least to attempt 
to subject it to mathematical formulae, 
especially where, as already noted, any 
mathematical symbol can be but an ap- 
proximate exactitude of a unit, where 
the ratio of the relatives can only be re- 
duced to a minimum, not to the elimina- 
tion of either. If, therefore, ethics can 
be mathematically applied, it does not 
follow that it must thereby furnish a solu- 
tion for a perfect morality, but an approx- 
imating one. In /Esthetics, desires or 
aversions have already been noted in their 
relation in Ceptacle. Language names 
these to consciousness, whereby the Cep- 
76 



I M m 1 1 m i 1 m n 1 1 1 1 n 1 m 1 1 1 1 lliiti jjxij-Ixlijllajlli 1 ■ 1 1 ■ 1 ■ ■ 1 ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 1 ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ^u-.^ »-» ^ » ■ ' » « »^ j ^_ lj _ ! ^m 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

tacle knows its desires or aversions as 
such. These it also knows with more or 
less certainty in a positive or negative 
sense, in a greater or less degree, accord- 
ing to the development of the sensibility 
or keenness of its con-science. That is, 
the word expressive of desire is also, at 
one and the same time, as expressive of 
affirmation, or, on the contrary, aversion 
that of negation. In a Ceptacle, where 
the ratio of its qualitatives is greater or 
less than any assignable difference, per- 
fect symbolism, either mathematically or 
ethically, is not possible, and for precisely 
the same reason. But if it be true that 
there is found in the same Ceptacle, quality 
that can be expressed both ethically and 
mathematically, then is opened an inter- 
esting field for investigation. Ceptacle 
is a thing of inseparable relatives. It 
knows these in their qualitative signifi- 
cance by words indicating to its conscious 
Identity a ratio of desire or aversion, hav- 
ing the further significance at the same 
77 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

time, of indicating, in such Identity, these 
as the attractions and affinities or their 
negatives, that are the natural laws gov- 
erning the activity of intelligence-matter. 
May not ethical desire, then, be mathe- 
matically expressed by the -f- sign, and 
aversion with the — sign, in a formula 
that is logically correct, leading to a valid 
demonstration? It must not be over- 
looked that Ceptacle is the conscious 
Identity of what is occurring within itself 
in a relationing of its own relatives, the 
mathematical formula being: 
+ added to + = + 

— added to — = + 

— added to + = — 

In this formula, if desire in Con-Science 
be as well represented by the -f sign, and 
aversion by the — sign, it will be ethically 
as well as mathematically true, that in 
any conscious Ceptacle, if desire adds 
desire to its Identity in that Ceptacle, in 
an expression of its consciousness as fur- 
ther desire (which is adding like quality 
78 



iiuuiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiilHlllUTiuiJiULTLiimLiiiiiUTninnngg 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

to like quality) the result is -J-, and like- 
wise moral good; or, so long as aversion 
in like manner increases as conscious 
Identity its aversion-quality in the rela- 
tion, by adding aversion to aversion as 
its conscious self, the result is +, or like- 
wise good. But the instant either desire 
or aversion in that conscious Identity 
passes over to where it would be the 
opposite, or unlike what it would be if it 
could be included in this Identity, it is its 
own disintegration, which to this Ceptacle 
is a negative product. Ethical conscious- 
ness evolved as Con-Science thus indi- 
cates how Identity with more exactitude 
may realize the equilibrium of forces in 
their relationing. This, in the law of 
Evolution, accounts for the Integration 
and Disintegration going on in intelli- 
gence-matter, by which it may direct the 
Identity of its being as this same intelli- 
gence-matter, in the morale of this evolu- 
tion. Observe further this mathematical 
formula applied to ethics. Either affini- 
79 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

ties and desires, or negatives and aver- 
sions, work for integration physically, 
and for good morally. And it must not 
be forgotten that while desires and aver- 
sions are expressed to consciousness in 
diversely opposite ideas, as moral and 
immoral, where desires are good and 
aversions bad, either, working with itself 
in its relation with itself, is for good, 
or +• And either, in its excess in that 
relationing, eventually throws off an 
Identity, which, related to itself, is bad, 
or — . But note this important fact: that 
this product, which in that relation would 
be disintegration or moral wrong, is in 
this new Ceptacle at once in itself good. 
Once taken up by this same mathematical 
and ethical formula, it will be found work- 
ing together with itself as its own rela- 
tives, an integration and a moral good. 

Thus would it appear that in atom, 

protoplasm and idea the Antithesis 

evolves its own avoidable, where, in the 

Synthesis, it becomes its own attainable. 

80 



iiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiuiij 



iimimiHmmimimiti 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

Theology must also account to and for 
itself in this Ceptacle theory. If the theory 
be scientific, and all that is known makes 
its appearance through this Nature-Fact, 
then any consciousness as or of a divine 
idea is in a classification with conscious- 
ness of material facts, in that both appear 
in such consciousnesss through Ceptacle 
only. Relationing, that plurality shown 
to be an inexhaustible in the ultimate of 
Science, must likewise be an inexhaust- 
ible in the ultimate of Theology. It must 
and does contain, as the Divine idea and 
as an inseparable Relationing, Deity in 
man, man in Deity. Furthermore, when 
this idea is that of Faith, it must not loose 
its hold upon the scientific fact that it is 
the expression of an intelligence-matter 
that is in the same classification and in an 
unbroken evolution with atom and proto- 
plasm. In this evolution, in its turn, the 
heterogeneous becomes homogeneous in 
an order that is from the impersonality of 
intelligence-matter through its personality 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

to its individuality, at which latter point 
this homogeneous reveals itself according" 
to its development as the three in one 
conscious Ego-Identity. At any stage in 
human history, its divine idea will be its 
Ceptacle or Ceptacles, having the capacity 
of largest expression within it's conscious- 
ness, before its disappearance or disinte- 
gration of, in and with itself. There 
appears to be no valid reason against that 
idea being an expansion, as desire plus 
desire, or aversion plus aversion, for the 
God of peace and the God of war appear 
alike at all human stages. In the brief 
application which is here made of this 
theory to Christian theology, it is not 
because it does not apply equally to any 
other, but because that theology is the 
one we best know; and in this connection 
it must also hold that whatever Christian 
theology derives as its knowledge of God 
from Revelation, it will require that it. 
trace this revelation through this same 
Nature-Fact-Ceptacle. 
82 



1 1 H H HI M 1 H H I M ' ' ' ' ' ' " ■ " ■ " ■ ' ' ■ ' ' |T| ' ' ' BT ■ ' i^i i iiTTTTnrTTTTriTiTirizijijjjmg 



mm 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

The Divine Idea of this theology in 
any Ceptacle of Ego-Identity must be 
sufficient to comprehend Deity as that 
which is Everlasting to Everlasting. As 
Ceptacle, this idea must be as capable of 
expansion upon its objective or material 
side as upon its subjective or spiritual 
side, and in this expansion, in either 
direction, this spiritual and material as 
Intelligence-Matter must remain in an 
inseparable relation to the point of simul- 
taneous disappearance of that Ceptacle 
from all consciousness. Upon the mate- 
rial side we have already stated our posi- 
tion in Proposition I. Upon the spiritual 
side the hypothesis is contained in Propo- 
sition IV. It will probably be agreed that 
the most satisfactory theological test of 
this last proposition is the teaching found 
in the Bible, and especially in the New 
Testament, as the culmination of those 
teachings. 

The first eighteen verses of the first 
chapter of the Gospel of St. John, we take 
83 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

it, is a fundamental statement, from the 
Christian point of view, of the Spiritual 
Idea — God in man. From this Ceptacle 
point of view it will accord equally well 
as a statement of Antecedent, realizing 
Itself to Itself in its own expression where 
Idea is "Flesh" as Intelligence-Matter in 
evolved human body. The Idea in both 
is that in Intelligence-Matter it real- 
izes its Being as its everlasting Self. 
Here it is embodied in the individuality 
of Jesus Christ. In the fullness of this 
development in this individual Ego-Iden- 
tity, it knows its Being in an At-One- 
Ness with itself, as its own Antecedent or 
Father. In Chapter V, verses 19 to 47, 
inclusive, Jesus emphasizes this One-Ness 
as a thing of evolving conscious develop- 
ment in mankind, and not His exclusive 
privilege, indicating that whatever Idea 
of the Everlasting He embodied, the hu- 
man race was in a like line with its devel- 
opment. In Chapter VI, verses 29 to 65, 
inclusive, the inseparable character of 
84 



1H11"! 1 """"""" 11 """ TiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiTnnnnuumiEmi 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

spirit in matter and matter in spirit is 
treated. In Chapter VIII, verses 12 to 
59, inclusive, the imperishable character 
of this idea, the Everlasting, the spirit of 
this Intelligence-Matter which He says is 
individualized as the personality of Him- 
self as Jesus Christ, He amplifies and 
holds out to those who in their lesser 
development do not yet comprehend it. 
And so on through this Gospel of St. 
John, from the statement in verses 1 to 
4, Chapter I, to the end, the doctrine is 
that Logos was in the beginning and was 
God. It is Antecedent that is in Things 
and is Things, that knows Itself in its 
expression, in human flesh, when it 
reaches an Ego-Identity that calls itself 
Jesus Christ. It comprehends itself as 
Antecedent and human thing in One 
Identity. This is accomplished only 
when Antecedent and Expression are in 
that Identity an inseparable relation. 
But the Gospel statement that this insep- 
arable, that God is in man, man in God, 
85 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

is in the expression Jesus Christ, is by no 
means an unquestioned one. Nor will it 
be until it is also proved an unavoidable 
conclusion, conceded by science and phi- 
losophy where they meet and solve the 
same problem in physics and metaphysics. 
Evolution, as physics, metaphysics, aes- 
thetics, ethics and theology would appear 
to be unfolding consciousness in an order 
where the direction of the movement of 
the relatives is from the material toward 
the ratio-mX. From out the physical 
comes the first glimmer of Intelligence- 
Matter. While out of the meta-physical 
has evolved a conscious Ratio that is the 
Identity of these Intelligence - Matter- 
relatives, as Itself. This Ratio is what 
becomes known to science and philos- 
ophy as Life, which last, as idea, is repre- 
sentative of the Nature of the Being, of 
this Intelligence-Matter. That this is so 
must have the effect of an unavoidable 
conclusion, if neither science nor philos- 
ophy can separate their idea, Ratio-nal, 
86 



iiiniiiiuiMiiiiiiiM 



1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 III I III I M II 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H IU-L' LJ ' ' 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

as that which holds together this Intelli- 
gence-Matter, from that other idea, Life, 
which is the Being of this Intelligence- 
Matter, and it matters not whether life is 
gravitation in atom or affection in proto- 
plasm. But while this Ratio, or Life 
Ceptacle, may serve as the Ultimate of 
science and philosophy which treat only 
of Intelligence-Matter, it will not answer 
for theology, which must look beyond 
the substance of which these treat and 
which must still be in the same classifica- 
tion with that substance. Theology can 
rest upon no Ceptacle as its ultimate 
which is an idea of Deity, that can have 
its limitations bounded by any Intelli- 
gence-Matter known to the present stage 
of evolved consciousness, however sublime 
that comprehension. But it must treat 
of a God that has a Ratio-nal Being with 
that consciousness capable of having such 
Being beyond this consciousness. If it 
does this, it is in a line of reasoning with 
science and philosophy where their known 
87 



Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. 

is inseparably bound up with their un- 
known in evolution. 

Life of Intelligence-Matter becomes 
conscious of its own Ratio — Nature, as 
greater or less than any given difference 
between these relatives, intelligence-mat- 
ter, where it realizes its ceaseless conti- 
nuity throughout the entire movement in 
evolution from physics to theology. The 
Nature of this Ratio in its latest develop- 
ment is a Ceptacle of Ever-Lasting-Life, 
when in its conscious Identity its unused 
capabilities form an inseparable, present re- 
lation with its used capabilities. A con- 
clusion as valid as any furnished by 
science or philosophy. And one which 
gives to Theology the Faith-Identity of 
Jesus Christ where He confides His soul's 
Ego-Identity to a Ratio-nalism that con- 
tinues Antecedent and Its expression 
inseparable, when all intelligence, all 
matter, and all ratio conceivable to this 
stage of conscious being, in any Ceptacle, pass 
out of that consciousness. 
88 

L. of o. 



iilliiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiJ 



ii mmnm 



PRINTED BY R. R. DONNELLEY 
& SONS CO. AT THE LAKESIDE 
PRESS, CHICAGO, ILL. MDCCCC 



liimmiiiiiiiiiimii 



lllllllllllllllllllLLLliLliLSiliiii: 



Tiiriiniiiimiiiiiiiii 



iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiliiliiimi^^^ 



APR 18 1900 



1llllllllllllllllliili" imiT1limTllinillTimmlTTTTTTTTT,TTini 



[ J il l I ILL 1 ' ' 1J - U ' ,c rjL ' ' ' ' " 



' 



